Hi!
Tommy Hellstr�m wrote:
> > Why?
>
> Because there are more thing to cover when you more than one TM ordered as a tree of
> subordinate coordinators, than when you have a single TM with a few RM's.
If I haven't missed something I think each subcoordinator would be
handled as a RM. So the only thing to cover is to add each
sub-coordinator as a RM, and the rest will work automatically by way of
recursion.
> > > and
> > > the large amount of possible failures that can happen,
> >
> > All of which are reported to the TM as an exception.
>
> I don't think that is the case. Consider the case when we have subordinate
>coordinator as
> a participant in a transaction that dies after sending PREPARED to the coordinating
>TM.
> When the participating does its recovery it see that COMMITED is not logged so it
>has no
> way of telling if the coordinator has sent COMMIT or not, it then has to run a
> termination protocol of some kind. Right?
Hm.. I thought that only the top TM was allowed to do commits... I need
to read up perhaps.. you might be right.
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telkel.com
http://www.jboss.org
http://www.dreambean.com
